Posts by Onionman

Page:

A pedant writes...

"Google and Berkshire Hathaway are two very pricey stocks that don't split"

Berkshire DO split. Firstly, they had two classes of share, the B share worth a thirtieth of the value of the A share (which is a de facto split IMHO). The B share was recently split and is now worth 1/1500 of the A share.

Cripes, I started something.

Well, thanks for all the considered and unconsidered responses.

I was pretty clear about what I was saying - given ONE scan that's what I would do. I agree that if you repeat it and you effectively had a sign stating that no white women over 70 will be scanned that just might give people a starting point to get round your security.

I will also say that I'm not sure you could persuade most old grannies that Jihad is a good idea. Suicide bombers tend to be younger; old people mellow too much. So I'm afraid you're never going to get her to do it for you, no matter how many cakes you buy her. Not even the nice ones with the rice paper on the bottom.

As to the last A/c (at 16:52) who has called me stupid, bear in mind that if the most stupid man in the world tells you it's raining, it has no bearing on the truth or falsehood of what he's saying, so it might be worth taking an umbrella. Also, Sonny Jim, I know more about conditional probability than you will EVER know. I guarantee that unequivocally. Given the amount I know, the probability of your knowing more is, frankly, close enough to zero to ignore. However, that has no bearing on the accuracy of my argument, so feel free to assess the facts rather than knee-jerking out the "stupid racist" card.

@Ac 13:10

"No, what needs to be sorted out is...that pension funds should not rely on what is basically a casino by another name: the stock market. Betting the future of people on something that is basically as random as a monkey throwing darts seems to me not a reasonable way of ensuring a retirement."

Utterly ludicrous. What should they do, keep your money under the mattress? Long term (which pensions are) there is no better way to grow a pot of cash (reference a million studies). Yes, it's risky in the short term, but pension funds shouldn't be looking short term.

@ First reponse

"IMO shareholders should get what's left when everyone that made the money is sorted out, as it stands they get first look for just buying a few bits of paper and sitting back how is that fair?"

That's right, shareholders just "buy a few bits of paper". No mention of the fact that they fund companies in the first place and they fund growth in companies. They are RISKING their cash. And they have the last call on the companies' funds after all other creditors have been paid. Hardly the picture you're painting.

And rememebr, the major shareholders here represent you. If you have money in a pension, you own shares/"just buy a few bits of paper" so you benefit too.

What needs to be sorted out is the pension funds, who push for short-term returns on their shares despite the fact that they should be in for the long term.

@EvilJason

"Should not be hard to track and find these people."

I speak as someone involved in the past in detecting this kind of thing.

Unfortunately, the text/call is probably going to go to a suitably unpoliced country, where the cash is collected by someone in another country who then passes it on to the guy in Russia writing the malware, someone who will be paying the right people to be protected. And who is probably doing it for a few weeks before changing every link in the chain. It's really not as easy as it sounds.

More positively, ten years ago I was involved in developing systems to detect suspicious behaviour and stop the calls/texts almost immediately. If telcos aren't using such systems ten years on then customers should be up in arms.

From Catch-22

"Help!" he shrieked shrilly in a voice strangling in its own emotion, as the policemen carried him to the open doors in the rear of the ambulance and threw him inside. "Police! Help! Police!" The doors were shut and bolted, and the ambulance raced away. There was humorless irony in the ludicrous panic of the man screaming for help to the police while policemen were all around him. Yossarian smiled wryly at the futile and ridiculous cry for aid, then saw with a start that the words were ambiguous, realized with alarm that they were not, perhaps, intended as a call for police, but as a heroic warning from the grave by a doomed friend to everyone who was not a policeman with a club and a gun and a mob of other policemen with clubs and guns to back him up. "Help! Police!" the man had cried, and he could have been shouting of danger."

If it saves just one kid

@BigYin

"Moving anything by ship is the most efficient way if most cases. This is why we need the canals open again. So long as the items are not time-critical (which is an anathema to JIT processes) they can come by barge."

Except, of course, that there is a financial cost in the delay as well as just food spoiling. I've travelled by barge: a trip across the country could easily take the best part of a couple of weeks (and then some), so your money in stock would be tied up for all that time. You'd also be paying someone's wages for the duration. Plus, the canal system simply does not have the capacity required. For proof, stand by the M6 and count the lorries for an hour. Imagine trying to get that many barges per hour down the canal that runs parallel. Apart from that lot, barge delivery is fine.

"Why aren't the ports also railway freight terminals**?."

Erm, Southampton Station (where I catch a train most weeks) has a pretty regular flow of goods trains coming through from the port. See: http://preview.tinyurl.com/ykvk4xg

"This study does point out one thing though - why one must be very careful about the dogma spouted by the greenies. They are now responsible for perfectly good cars being scrapped and new "efficient" ones being bought - new ones that have to be built and consume way more resources than they could possible save. Well done greenies! Another pyrrhic victory for you!"

hmm

Happened before

Many years ago - probably about 15 years ago, I was out early and listening to the shipping forecast in the car. The guy reading it (I think it was Brian Perkins) sounded more and more worried as he read it, then there was the sound of paper being rustled and he said "That appears to be yesterday's forecast I'm reading". He then read the right one in the time left, about a minute.

So, it's happened before.

Then again, I've been known to make the odd mistake at work; mine just don't get the same publicity.

@yossarianuk

The 1994 act states: "(3) A person shall not have the proceedings against him transferred to the Crown Court for trial, have a case to answer or be convicted of an offence solely on an inference drawn from such a failure or refusal as is mentioned in section 34(2), 35(3), 36(2) or 37(2)."

i.e. silence alone is not enough for a prosecution. You need other evidence. You do still have a right to silence, i.e. "I'm saying nothing; it's up to you to prove your case".

@RobE

You defend Brown with: "More often than not you will find that situations like this don't come about because of one single person but as the result of idiots collaboratively cocking things up.. think about your own work lives and you will probably see that its generally down to miscommunication or crappy leadership somewhere along the chain of command."

Surely some mistake here? Gordon is the one giving "crappy leadership".

And, as for the global problem, he was on the ropes before that hit. Remember his pathetic vacillation about an election when he ... er.... wasn't influenced by the polls? Don't rewrite history.

@AC 16:07

Wow - I think I can see your method here. You pointed out a word misspelt by the target of your attack. Clever. You really have him in the grip of reason there. Astounding skill in dismantling his argument, I'd say.

As for "Finally: I don't like the Register's endorsement of the tories." You are kidding. El Reg hates everyone equally. The fact that this pathetic shambles of a so-called government is a total failure means that all coverage is likely to look negativ.

Survey

In a recent, utterly non-scientific survey recently while waiting for a bus, about 1 in 12 drivers in the queue passing me was either talking or texting. Makes me think that the legislation isn't making a jot of difference, largely because traffic cars are like rocking horse shit these days.

One reason this might succeed

This solution will allow Gordon to take his cut. Anything that allows you to charge up at home is tough to tax without introducing road charging. This would be the same as the current fuel infrastructure, so the Gubment could take their usual pound of flesh.

More fool them

"Nikitina received five cash advances on the card for a total of $24,500. A few weeks later, she sent Citibank a check for $25,000. Although the check was returned for insufficient funds, the fraudulent payment caused Citibank to temporarily increase her credit line. The total financial loss to the bank was calculated at $69,940.94."

So, it looks like a payment of $25K was received (but not cleared) and they raised her limit to $70K?

I dislike criminals of any stamp, but Citibank do not have an ounce of my pity after that behaviour.

Brought it on themselves

When the police took "Policing by consent" seriously, they were supported by the vast majority of the population. Now they have become a branch of the government, they need to be defended from us. Whose fault is that?

Keep their face pixellated for all I care. It's the uniform I fear these days, not the individual.

Code is never perfect

And the problem is that if and when Linux becomes a syatem widely used by...less capable... people than it is now, there will be problems.

If someone ever releases a PC running Linux that Joe Average can use to surf the web, do his banking, look for pron, etc, then Linux will be savagely attacked with all the vigour currently directed at Windows. At that point, all bets will be off. I would argue that all it takes is a financial reason to attack and it will be attacked.

No matter that it's used widely by businesses, the time it becomes worthwhile to attack is when the man in the street is using it for online banking, etc.

@Robert E Harvey

"Why on earth should anyone be paid extra for just doing their job?"

I'm sure that fits in with your world view, but try looking at it this way. You're an engineer. You're paid £x per annum whether you do your job or not. A salesman is paid £z-y per annum and has to do his job to earn his designated salary of £z. Commission for salesmen is NOT a bonus; it's part of their salary. The belief that commission is a bonus is why commission systems in every company are such a low priority.

Al Quaeda

Useless bunch. They have managed to pull off one attack in the US (eight years ago) and one in the UK four years ago. Since then this superhuman organisation has managed nothing. ten people a day die on the roads in the UK (100 a day in USA); the death toll from terrorism is truly negligible. They are crap terrorists.

I get irritated by this kind of tripe because the reponse of Londoners to the Tube bombings was "sod 'em, our way of life's too good to give in to these buggers". Our Government's reaction has been to try to erode our way of life in the interests of....something or other, buggered if I know.

Thus we end up losing the rights these pathetic terrorists *want* us to lose. My right to take a picture in the street without having to justify myself, for instance. They have tricked our rulers into making our rights that little bit less worthy of defence. What a marvellous own-goal.

Innocent until proven guilty

But not for the first six or twelve years after your wrongful arrest, apparently. SIX years? How about "If you're arrested we'll keep your DNA sample until we either drop charges or you are found 'not guilty' in court"? If you're found guilty, we'll obviously keep it forever.

If I get arrested by mistake, what's the possible benefit of keeping my DNA for SIX years? Apart from natural government control-freakery, that is?

Ref Suburban inmate. A pedant writes....

"...many paragraphs of rebuttals of Jobs' idiocy (note the skilful use of the apostrophe) "

Sadly, unless I am missing a joke of some kind (entirely possible), your usage is inaccurate. The "s" in Jobs does not indicate a plural (though this may be the joke I'm missing). In that case, it should be "Jobs's idiocy".

That'll stop every pirate on the planet

From Catch 22

""Help!" he shrieked shrilly in a voice strangling in its own emotion, as the policemen carried him to the open doors in the rear of the ambulance and threw him inside. "Police! Help! Police!" The doors were shut and bolted, and the ambulance raced away. There was humorless irony in the ludicrous panic of the man screaming for help to the police while policemen were all around him. Yossarian smiled wryly at the futile and ridiculous cry for aid, then saw with a start that the words were ambiguous, realized with alarm that they were not, perhaps, intended as a call for police, but as a heroic warning from the grave by a doomed friend to everyone who was not a policeman with a club and a gun and a mob of other policemen with clubs and guns to back him up. "Help! Police!" the man had cried, and he could have been shouting of danger.""

@Chris Thomas Alpha

Chris,

Too much coffee, I think. One way to look at it is to imagine a two dimensional man whose universe is the surface of the balloon he lives on. He's truly two dimensional, so there is no "up" or "down" to him. Blow the balloon up and it expands. From his perspective, everything on the surface moves away from everything else. Unfortunately, to him, it just expands everywhere. As there's no up or down to him, the concept of an origin point means nothing.

Everything in the universe is moving apart from everything else without an origin point, I'm afraid.

Already covered by the lunatics

One of the conspiracy nuts has already said there is no evidence that could make him change his mind (now THERE'S scientific rigour for you). He said even if they found landers, they must have been sent on later when technology allowed.

That's the joy of these idiots: give them a bit of damning evidence and all they have to do is invent a way to fake it so it's part of the conspiracy. There is literally no way to convince them.

Anger at adverts

Can the guys who want no advertising explain their alternative? I'm curious as to how all the "free" sites will survive. How will they fund themselves in your ad-free utopia?

You're all paid (directly or indirectly) by the fruits of capitalism. Relax and accept that an advert on the page isn't exactly an infringement of your liberty. It's what makes the internet such a cheap experience. Just ignore them if you want, but why get so angry? Furthermore, why be so condescending towards people who either place ads or click on them?

@Andrew Roberts

"figures plucked from the air, but not out of question".

"Not out of the question"? You are kidding, aren't you? It's ridiculous numbers like that that stifle sensible debate (one of the points of the article). As long as we're told it's armageddon (again) people stop thinking rationally about solutions to problems and start acting emotionally (cf Monbiot and his ludicrous call for 96% reduction in CO2).

ODFO, media tosspots!

World Health Organisation: "Although difficult to assess.. annual epidemics [of influenza] are thought to result in between three and five million cases of severe illness and between 250 000 and 500 000 deaths every year around the world."

Read that quote again

"POTENTIALLY present significant new risks due to their minute size, such as increased reactivity and mobility, POSSIBLY leading to increased toxicity in combination with unrestricted access to the human body, and POSSIBLY involving quite different mechanisms of interference with the physiology of human and environmental species."

If these cretins had been in power long enough ago, we'd still be in the dark ages. "Drugs? Possibly harmful. Ban 'em". "Electricity? Ditto". "Domestic Gas supplies, are you mad?".